ks-water-use

What thirty-four years actually show

Everyone wants a single arrow. The file does not give one — and the honest reading is more interesting than the arrow would have been.

⚠️ Why any two years lie

Kansas reported 5,352,005 acre-feet in 1990 and 4,482,689 in 2023. Put like that it looks like a decline of about 16%. But the same file reports 6,374,054 in 2000 and 6,187,504 in 2020 — both above 1990. Pick a wet year against a dry one and you can manufacture any trend you like.

This site made that mistake before it was built. The first draft of this page said « a measured decline of 16.2% » because it compared the two ends of the series. Reading the whole series killed the claim. We keep the correction visible rather than quietly fixing it, because the same trap is waiting for anyone who downloads this file.

What is stable, and it is the interesting part

The volume swings. The number of points reporting any use does not: 26,449 in 1990, 26,745 in 2000, 26,281 in 2010, 26,192 in 2023.

Whatever the weather does to the volume, roughly the same number of diversions is drawing on the aquifer every year. The infrastructure of irrigation does not contract with a wet season — it simply pumps less.

By decade, which is the only comparison that survives

First ten years on file: 4,984,804 acre-feet a year on average. Last ten years: 5,320,529. That is a comparison of twenty data points against twenty, not one against one.

Reported use across Kansas, year by year. The last column is the gap to the thirty-four year average — the swing is rainfall.
YearAcre-feetAcres irrigatedPoints reportingvs average
19905,352,0053,072,84526,449+3%
19915,433,8823,113,92426,889+4%
19923,989,2122,958,88924,921-23%
19933,525,2382,852,22123,540-32%
19944,696,4303,049,77926,128-10%
19954,418,2333,034,23425,755-15%
19965,605,1533,091,38426,073+7%
19975,493,7873,160,34826,354+5%
19985,755,6803,196,54926,388+10%
19995,578,4253,219,41626,510+7%
20006,374,0543,210,25526,745+22%
20015,617,7323,171,58926,776+8%
20025,985,1823,268,09327,220+15%
20035,319,4353,151,82227,151+2%
20044,811,6623,139,31326,634-8%
20054,580,0743,126,77926,654-12%
20064,985,4623,112,71626,619-4%
20074,703,0463,080,44926,235-10%
20084,877,7463,096,33526,215-6%
20094,772,1033,075,95926,135-8%
20105,225,5713,092,16826,281+0%
20116,168,1803,127,56326,680+18%
20125,736,3183,069,60726,674+10%
20135,083,2683,171,41926,518-3%
20144,979,4593,131,36426,647-5%
20154,768,2773,125,73826,394-9%
20165,539,6583,111,10926,389+6%
20175,468,2023,155,01526,500+5%
20185,183,6453,061,19426,497-1%
20194,714,9143,082,21125,631-10%
20206,187,5043,091,76226,155+19%
20215,793,6073,144,08426,343+11%
20226,087,3383,093,47226,487+17%
20234,482,6893,308,57926,192-14%

Where the pumping is

The five groundwater management districts exist because the aquifer is finite and the pumping is concentrated. Southwest Kansas GMD 3 alone holds 15,740 of the 59,615 points on file.

DistrictPointsShare
Outside any district25,05842.0%
Southwest Kansas GMD 315,74026.4%
Big Bend GMD 56,85011.5%
Northwest Kansas GMD 44,3777.3%
Equus Beds GMD 24,1867.0%
Western Kansas GMD 13,4045.7%

These are the figures water-right holders reported. They describe declared use, not what a meter would have read, and they say nothing about the condition of a well or the state of the aquifer beneath it.